Mazda 626 1999 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.1 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 15 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Mercedes C class. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1230 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 1040 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mercedes E klase, Mercedes Vito | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mercedes C class engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 626 is 6 cm longer than the Mercedes C class, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mercedes C class, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mercedes C class has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 626, so Mercedes C class quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |